Stem Cell Ads.

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by centaur532

1. Stem cell research should be federally funded

An assumption not a fact

Originally Posted by centaur532

4. Limbaugh ... a blundering idiotic drug addict, ... and a background in sportscasting.

Further proof you are a Jon Stewart-educated lib. It's unlikely "a blundering idiotic drug addict, ... and a background in sportscasting" could have a radio audience of 20 mil weekly, last 18+ years. To correct your error, he worked for the KC baseball club, but not as a broadcaster.

And do you remember when Robin Williams was on the Tonight Show making jokes about Rush's drug problems? A week later, Robin Williams enters alcohol rehab, and asks for privacy. Typical lib.

Originally Posted by centaur532

As sad as the thought of Hilary Clinton running for president...

Bring her on, so the Clinton record can be exposed, defeated, and buried.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

It's unlikely "a blundering idiotic drug addict, ... and a background in sportscasting" could have a radio audience of 20 mil weekly, last 18+ years.

So how do you account for Howard Stern, then (minus the background in sportcasting)???

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

So how do you account for Howard Stern, then (minus the background in sportcasting)???

Stern was the very first person to do something as extreme as he does it in the history of broadcast radio. Sex sells......and he was a major trailblazer in bringing it into every household and car in the country. I don't think you can really compare. When you are getting paid half a billion dollars to talk on satellite radio....you must have done something right.

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

So how do you account for Howard Stern, then (minus the background in sportcasting)???

Not much to compare. Limbaugh dominates the ratings among adults in nearly 600 markets.

Stern did well among youngsters in the 30 or so markets he had.

Stern, incidently, is looking to get back on regular radio, and Sirius will be available on the internet soon.

Can someone prove as they posted: "Do you remember when Rush went on and on about how drug addicts should be locked up? Well I do." Never happened.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

Not much to compare. Limbaugh dominates the ratings among adults in nearly 600 markets.

Stern did well among youngsters in the 30 or so markets he had.

Stern, incidently, is looking to get back on regular radio, and Sirius will be available on the internet soon.

Can someone prove as they posted: "Do you remember when Rush went on and on about how drug addicts should be locked up? Well I do." Never happened.

did so

[sdsuchelle]

October 10th, 1995:

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

On his TV show on December 9, 1993:

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can't control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let's legalize it." It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish."

... and more

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by sdsuchelle

October 10th, 1995:

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

On his TV show on December 9, 1993:

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can't control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let's legalize it." It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish."

... and more

OH SNAP!

[sdsuchelle]

Originally Posted by centaur532

OH SNAP!

OWNED

[FirstAndFinest]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

Stern, incidently, is looking to get back on regular radio, and Sirius will be available on the internet soon.

Shenanigans!

Howard would have no incentive to go back to terrestrial radio; he's collecting a handsome paycheck from Sirius and they give him something terrestrial radio is unable to give - TRUE freedom of speech. I cannot see him doing part-time terrestrial and part-time satelite, like O&A do. His satelite show would be ALL bleeps on terrestrial radio!!

Sirius subscribers have been able to log onto sirius.com and listen to Howard for months now.

He is not a drug addict, just hooked on them that are perscribed for him.

All due respect, it doesn't matter how one comes by a substance. Doesn't matter if you take the percocet prescribed by an MD or you buy coke/crack/meth/H/X/pot from a dealer (or cook the meth in your kitchen coffee maker)! Once a person becomes "hooked", or dependent, or whatever euphemism you prefer, the result is the same: the person has the disease of addiction. That doesn't make the person bad, just sick. (though sick people, esp those with addictions, do bad things...)

As for MJF, I think it is truly despicable that anyone would accuse him of faking/acting. My father-in-law has this disease and the effects are so heartbreaking! I imagine they are more-so for a man as young as MJF. I know I'm grateful that he is a proponent for research!

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

An assumption not a fact



Further proof you are a Jon Stewart-educated lib. It's unlikely "a blundering idiotic drug addict, ... and a background in sportscasting" could have a radio audience of 20 mil weekly, last 18+ years. To correct your error, he worked for the KC baseball club, but not as a broadcaster.

And do you remember when Robin Williams was on the Tonight Show making jokes about Rush's drug problems? A week later, Robin Williams enters alcohol rehab, and asks for privacy. Typical lib.



Bring her on, so the Clinton record can be exposed, defeated, and buried.

Thanks, but I'm not a lib at all. In fact, I can't vote. And this is further proof that you're a gimmick. Do you remember when Rush went on and on about how drug addicts should be locked up? Well I do.
Stem cell research should be federally funded is not an assumption, it's an opinion.
You're a piss poor gimmick you know that?

[Glitter650]

You know... as far as "using" Fox for "sympathy" I see it no differently than the police putting the distraught mother of the missing child begging for their kid's safe return on TV.
You want to show how much this event (in this case disease) can hurt people, and then tell them what can be done to help it. I think *Most* people know that of course the media is going to play on our emotions. It's nothing new and nothing others haven't done in the past, or won't be done in the future, so why attack M J Fox for doing it ?

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Glitter650

You know... as far as "using" Fox for "sympathy" I see it no differently than the police putting the distraught mother of the missing child begging for their kid's safe return.
You want to show how much this event (in this case disease) can hurt people, and then tell them what can be done to help it. I think *Most* people know that of course the media is going to play on our emotions. It's nothing new and nothing others haven't done in the past, or won't be done in the future, so why attack M J Fox for doing it ?

Because he's supporting a liberal candidate of course. I am so sick of this whole 'hurr lie-berals' 'hurr republi-can'ts' argument. It's never about issues and policy, it's always 'you suck because you belong to this party and vote this way.'

Yes, because I find Jon Stewart funny and entertaining, as well making some good points, obviously I know nothing. It has nothing to do with the fact that I do not agree with the new laws and policies that have been made by the current republican majority.
For instance-I agree with gay marriage, stem cell research and abortions. This means I will support the candidate who believes the same things.
If John McCain runs for president in 2008 and I agree with his stances, then I will vote for him (I should have my citizenship by then).

I personally think Ann Cooter just says the things she says to sell books. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

[Tom Earp]

Did anyone happen to catch Micheals interview with Katie?

I think he explained the effects very well.